HuskerNation1

Most of the media refused to fact check Hillary, Warren, or Obama. That's just how it goes when you don't subscribe to their views. Regarding Warren, she actually scares me more than Bernie Sanders. For those that think Trump is a whack job, just listen to Warren talk for an hour, and the sad part is she is dead serious in her views. While I think Warren would excite the Democratic base as a VP pick, I think she would alienate moderates and Independents, not just because of her far left-wing views, but also I honestly don't think this country is ready for a dual female ticket. I honestly think it could backfire a bit as well. There is always a gender gap where Democrats win the female vote by 10 points (give or take a few) and Republicans win the male vote by 10 points (give or take a few). I think adding Warren keeps the female advantage about the same for the Dems, but drives up the male advantage for the Republicans. The television media generally does a horrible job of fact-checking and context, period. People don't read the papers anymore. And they use the internet to find memes they already agree with. But in a pinch you can always go to factcheck.org. It's run by the Annenberg Foundation -- one of Ronald Reagan's biggest benefactors -- but they do a good job of maintaining neutrality. You'll find evidence there to make your case, but you'll also have to face evidence that destroys some of your other cases. That's the problem with facts. Also, being neutral doesn't necessarily make both sides equal. Donald Trump and the Republican slate of candidates do not fare very well. And the claims against everything Obama has done in office don't hold up to scrutiny, either. This is why I keep bringing up the Brexit example. Voters went for the raw, manipulative emotion and ignored the salient facts. Now they wished they'd paid better attention. While factcheck was founded by a Reagan guy, they have veered to the left and have ties to Bill Ayers. I honestly have little trust for any site or news outlet claiming to be neutral. Built-in biases always exist, and some do a better job of pretending to be unbiased. For instance, a site like fact check may try to show Trump as "True" on a minor meaningless topic, but then "false" on a more important topic, and it would be just the opposite for Hillary. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2923825/posts

Not that it matters what I "feel comfortable" with, or you, or anyone other than the Justices, but yes, that is correct. The odds of that happening are relatively small if whomever is appointed honors the doctrine of stare decisis upon which the Court is based, but it could. To say that the evidence "conflicts" is to say that there is no proof that there is fetal pain at 20 weeks, as I pointed out. Your question is unclear. If you are asking me whether it is legal, then the answer is no - what is legal is what was determined by the Court. If you are asking me what I believe should be the standard, then my first response is to refer you to my answer immediately above - it does not matter. I do believe that the Roe decision utilized a flawed legal reasoning. Not on the issue of a right to abortion, but on the framework for determining the "balancing point" between a woman's right to choose and the state's interest. All rights are finite - they must be weighed in relation to all other rights, and at times the balance falls in favor of one right than another. In the case of abortion, I have no problem with the concept that the state has an interest in regulating abortion. But that regulation should be limited to ensuring that the abortion is performed in a manner that is safe and that uses medically appropriate means, both of which means presenting the woman with the requisite knowledge of the risks of whatever procedure is to be used. So long as those parameters are met, the state's interest should end and the woman's interest should take precedence. If that allows abortions at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks, then that would be fine with me. I appreciate your courage in stating that you are ok with a woman aborting a pre-born (and fully capable of surviving on its own) as late as 37 weeks. I personally think that is a horrendous statement but we can agree to disagree. As for evidence conflicting, like I said, this will always exist when we are discussing political topics. Global warming is the greatest example, where environmentalists have claimed in recent years that science shows global warming is man-made and we must push legislation to deal with it. But, just as the left and environmental groups pushed a study by an Illinois grad claiming that 97% of warming is man-made, plenty of other evidence countered that. Regarding the Benghazi hearing, I believe there is plenty of evidence that HIllary knew the attack was a terrorist attack and misled Americans, but others look at her actions and like to see something different.

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy? A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being. A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart. For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer. It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is. Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks? You just explained it yourself by adding more parameters to your original question. And what is your answer... You've badgered multiple people with this same question multiple times, and you seem frustrated you aren't getting the answer you want. It seems you are trying to set up ideal conditions and are waiting to pass judgement on those who don't take the the most noble and brave action to save a "pre-born child" You know that recent event of the Houston mom who shot and killed her 2 teenage daughters? She shot one in the house, then the daughters and her father fled outside. The father got away, but the other daughter was shot. Both daughters died. I saw a comment from someone condemning the father for not trying to stop the mother from shooting; one or both daughters could have possibly been saved had he risked his own life and confronted the mom. Was that you who made that comment? Judging, shaming and condemning the father for not acting in the most noble way and risking his health to save a "post-born child"? That father should go to jail, right? That fathers selfish act resulted in the death of his perfectly healthy "post-born" child. In an ideal world, everyone acts very nobly and selflessly in every conceivable situation. But in reality, many don't. Oh sure, most people SAY, "well, _I_ would have done this", or "_I_would do that", but it's easy to say those things until it's "YOU" that is actually facing the situation. When push comes to shove, it's a different story. Granted some people may follow through with their convictions, but I believe many, when faced with the situation with no hindsight or little pre-consideration as most people are in real life, they would act in a similar manner as those they are condemning. Regarding your topic about the Houston shooting, I was not aware and have not commented. That is a horrific situation and an "in the moment" response where I understand there is not much time to think but rather react. Meanwhile, the decision to have an abortion if something that allows for ample time in later stages of a pregnancy to make such a decision. It's apples and oranges. As for badgering, its a simple question on a pretty straightforward topic, but if you choose not to, so be it.

I agree here and posted something similar yesterday. I think Hillary is just using Warren to try to gain the Bernie supporters. I think Warren may actually be to the left of Bernie which is hard to do. While Warren may fire up the base, she will completely alienate the middle and the male vote. The gender gap will always exist, where the Dems have a 10 point advantage (plus or minus a few points) among females and the GOP has a 10 point advantage among males. With Warren on the ticket, I don't see the Female gap widening, but I do see the male gap widening. Regarding some of the other comments about Condi, it's not about the GOP grooming her, she simply has not been interested in the position. She was asked in 2008 and declined. She was asked in 2012 and declined, and she is still doing the same now. She would bury Hillary in a debate and as a candidate.

No, that's not what you stated. What you stated was, "Last I checked, there is no amendment offering this right, and the only way it's legal is through what I consider the wrong interpretation of a Constiutional (sic) clause." Now, as to missing points, you missed three. First, it doesn't matter from where in the Constitution the right is derived. Whether the body of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Amendments, or interpretation of the rights specified. Every single right enumerated in the Constitution is, and has been, subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. The right of Free Speech? The Supreme Court has interpreted that to exclude speech that endangers people - the old "shouting fire in a crowded theater" standard, even though no such limitation exists in the Constitution. Right to bear arms? The Supreme Court has interpreted that to exclude felons, even though no such exclusion exists in the Constitution. So, in short, interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court determines the extent of a right - and in the case of abortion, that interpretation is that a woman has a right to choose, balanced against the state's interest. Second, and following the first, all such rights are "equal"; they carry the same Constitutional weight. Third, and derived from the first two, as the Supreme Court interprets all Constitutional rights, it can restrict or expand gun ownership by re-interpreting the Amendment, just as it could the privacy right upon which abortion rests. The only difference - and it makes NO difference as to the validity of the current right of abortion - between the 2nd Amendment and the right to abortion is that the former could only be completely eliminated via Amendment, while the latter could be completely eliminated by the Court. But, again - and most germane to this discussion - it makes no difference as to the current validity of the right. So, the fact that the Constitution does not expressly state a right to abortion, the right is as valid as the right conferred by the 2nd Amendment. Which leads back to my earlier statement - it's a Constitutional right despite your opinion. More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence.There have been a handful of studies that have addressed the issue of fetal pain. And in each study, the issue of fetal pain was peripheral to the actual study being conducted. Not a single study done to date has conclusively proven that a fetus experiences pain. Not one study that has undergone peer review or that meets the accepted standard of medical evidence. Studies have shown that a fetus reacts to stimulus - but so does a plant or any other form of life. But "more of the science is heading" that way? Simply not true. First, medical ethics generally prohibits that kind of a study; that's one reason that there has never been a study explicitly and expressly to determine the issue. Second, there is no funding to engage in it; until someone comes up with a way to objectively measure "pain" it can't be done. All that can be done is to look at the development of the physical structures that we know are necessary to experience pain. And on that, science is most definitely NOT moving toward it. All that is happening are doctors expressing opinions; for each claiming fetal pain, there is at least one that claims otherwise. So, no, science is not moving that way. No. Re-read my comments. I addressed two errors you made. I did so very narrowly. When you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I never broached the subject of late-term pregnancy. My response will be brief as I am typing on my phone so my apologies. I get what you are saying in the first section, so let me ask you this. Lets say Trump gets elected, and names 2 or 3 justices in line with Scalia's views, and Roe v Wade is overturned. Based upon what you just said, you would then feel comfortable stating that women do not have a right to an abortion...is that correct. As for conflicting scientific evidence, it will continue to conflict as long as there are opposing views on this topic, just as we see in the global warming debate where one side cites science to justify their views, and the other side dismisses it. With that said, I still would like an answer to the question on whether you believe its ok for a woman without exceptions to have an abortion at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks.

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy? A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being. A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart. For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer. It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is. Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks? You just explained it yourself by adding more parameters to your original question. And what is your answer...

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy? A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being. A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart. For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer. It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is. Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?

Except that's not what the scientific evidence establishes. Which, like guns, said right is derived from the Constitution. While it's not 100% alignment, I will guarantee you that most who staunchly believe in gun control also believe in the right to kill the pre-born. It's no different than saying Republicans are against gun control...I'm sure there are some who are in favor of it, but a high majority will always side with the 2nd amendment. As for the Constituation, I was referring to an amendment specifically calling out the right to an abortion. Last I checked, there is no amendment offering this right, and the only way it's legal is through what I consider the wrong interpretation of a Constiutional clause. The right to bear arms is listed as the 2nd Amendment right after freedom of speech, religion, press, etc... Ah, I see. It's a constitutional right so long as you think it is. Fortunately, that's not the way it works. It's a constitutional right despite your opinion. That's how it works. You are missing the point. What I stated is that there is no amendment calling out the right to have abortions like there is the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court in the 1970s decided abortion was ok, not our founding fathers, and a new Supreme Court in the future could alter that. Meanwhile, it would take a heck of a lot more to alter the 2nd amendment, as is evidence by this process. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/amendments.htm So as a general point, are you ok with late-term abortions, and do you feel that if there are no exceptions at play, any woman should be able to end a pregnancy at 25 weeks, 30 weeks, or even 37 weeks? What was the SCOTUS vote in Roe v. Wade & DC v. Heller? There is a long history of mixed decisions around abortion, partial birth, etc, and I don't care what the vote was in Roe vs DC. You are still missing the point that the right to bear arms is explicitly called out by the Constitution. Can you point me to what part of the Constitution explicitly calls our the right to abort a baby? http://www.pewforum.org/2013/01/16/a-history-of-key-abortion-rulings-of-the-us-supreme-court/ Also, as I asked previously, do you feel that if there are no exceptions at play, any woman should be able to end a pregnancy at 25 weeks, 30 weeks, or even 37 weeks?

Most of the media refused to fact check Hillary, Warren, or Obama. That's just how it goes when you don't subscribe to their views. Regarding Warren, she actually scares me more than Bernie Sanders. For those that think Trump is a whack job, just listen to Warren talk for an hour, and the sad part is she is dead serious in her views. While I think Warren would excite the Democratic base as a VP pick, I think she would alienate moderates and Independents, not just because of her far left-wing views, but also I honestly don't think this country is ready for a dual female ticket. I honestly think it could backfire a bit as well. There is always a gender gap where Democrats win the female vote by 10 points (give or take a few) and Republicans win the male vote by 10 points (give or take a few). I think adding Warren keeps the female advantage about the same for the Dems, but drives up the male advantage for the Republicans.

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy? A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being. A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart. For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer.

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy?

Except that's not what the scientific evidence establishes. Which, like guns, said right is derived from the Constitution. While it's not 100% alignment, I will guarantee you that most who staunchly believe in gun control also believe in the right to kill the pre-born. It's no different than saying Republicans are against gun control...I'm sure there are some who are in favor of it, but a high majority will always side with the 2nd amendment. As for the Constituation, I was referring to an amendment specifically calling out the right to an abortion. Last I checked, there is no amendment offering this right, and the only way it's legal is through what I consider the wrong interpretation of a Constiutional clause. The right to bear arms is listed as the 2nd Amendment right after freedom of speech, religion, press, etc... Ah, I see. It's a constitutional right so long as you think it is. Fortunately, that's not the way it works. It's a constitutional right despite your opinion. That's how it works. You are missing the point. What I stated is that there is no amendment calling out the right to have abortions like there is the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court in the 1970s decided abortion was ok, not our founding fathers, and a new Supreme Court in the future could alter that. Meanwhile, it would take a heck of a lot more to alter the 2nd amendment, as is evidence by this process. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/amendments.htm So as a general point, are you ok with late-term abortions, and do you feel that if there are no exceptions at play, any woman should be able to end a pregnancy at 25 weeks, 30 weeks, or even 37 weeks?

Except that's not what the scientific evidence establishes. Which, like guns, said right is derived from the Constitution. While it's not 100% alignment, I will guarantee you that most who staunchly believe in gun control also believe in the right to kill the pre-born. It's no different than saying Republicans are against gun control...I'm sure there are some who are in favor of it, but a high majority will always side with the 2nd amendment. As for the Constituation, I was referring to an amendment specifically calling out the right to an abortion. Last I checked, there is no amendment offering this right, and the only way it's legal is through what I consider the wrong interpretation of a Constiutional clause. The right to bear arms is listed as the 2nd Amendment right after freedom of speech, religion, press, etc...

Except that's not what the scientific evidence establishes. Which, like guns, said right is derived from the Constitution. Except that it does... http://www.mccl.org/unborn-babies-can-feel-pain.html http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/ http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/845410 It's no surprise that pro-abortion groups are going to try to ignore what science is proving

Matthew 25: 37-40 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" I really think this discussion is getting too philosophical. As I pointed out earlier, science is proving the pro-life movement right with each passing day. With the pre-born able to feel excruciating pain beginning around 20 weeks, there is no justification for allowing abortions to continue unless the mother's life is in danger and it's an either/or choice where someone must feel the pain. While I am ok if some oppose abortion based upon their own religious believes, it's also ok to declare something morally wrong that is not based upon a religious doctrine. It's comical to me that the same group that claims we must pass gun control legislation which has its basis in a Constitutional amendment, and by which ownership of a gun does not mean someone will be hurt or die, approves of the right to have unlimited abortions which GUARANTEES pain and suffering of the innocent pre-born.

I agree Shark...this is one of my more passionate issues. With science proving each and every day that the pre-born suffer and can feel pain at 20 weeks when an abortion is committed, yet pro-abortion groups believe they have a right to inflict this pain. It's completely mind-boggling that many on the left cannot even agree to banning late-term abortions which would be 20 weeks and beyond. http://www.mccl.org/unborn-babies-can-feel-pain.html

You can say a lot of things about Trump, but claiming he can't lead is not one of them. We are coming off of 7 years of a failed POTUS that had zero executive experience before he took the job, and it's shown in both his lack of results and his inability to bring both sides together. Trump knows how to make things happen, and sometimes that will mean he will tick off Republicans to pass a compromise.

I think some on this board are where I was months ago when I was in shock that Trump was catching fire in my party. I went through a phase of laughter, denial, and shock, and finally realized there is reason he's catching fire, and the vote in Britain yesterday demonstrates just why he's caught fire. He's calling attention to things that no other candidate has done in years, and saying them in a way that is resonating (though I think going overboard with his rhetoric is why he's down to Hillary at the moment). I think non-Republicans who were viewing the primary process as more of a spectator and less as a participant are now going through the same cycle. He is so unlike anything we've ever seen that it is hard to accept he could be our next POTUS, but once the shock wears off, people will be left with a decision of electing him or Hillary. I'm frankly surprised Hillary hasn't quit or been forced out given her continued investigation and the fact that her IT guys continue to plead the 5th.

I do not think there's an equivalency between the two, and I think I made that very clear. Benghazi, tragedy though it was, pales in comparison to what happened with Katrina. I'm not going to rehash that whole conversation, so if you want to relive it, it's in that thread. I think you're right that I bash Trump more than Democrats. Trump would make an atrocious president, and the fact that he had the temerity to run is proof that he deserves bashing. I think Obama has been a good president, he'll be remembered well (although not perfectly, and some of his mistakes will take a while to fix), and in general I think Trump is a disaster for the Republicans. I am not alone in that, and thinking either of those things doesn't make me liberal. Moderates, middle-of-the-road guys, can like Obama and not like Trump without being liberal whackos. The Right has moved further right than the Left has moved left. As the country becomes more liberal in views on marriage, equal rights, and loses its interest in religion - all traditional bastions of the Right, those on the Right have circled their wagons. The rhetoric has become even more pointed, and it's hurting the country. I see that from both sides, but the Right is doing more damage to the country. Things that move the country forward like allowing Gays to marry (which is a no-brainer!) or universal healthcare (another no-brainer!) are being resisted by people from the Right. These aren't liberal agendas, they're simple, basic human rights - FAR more obvious rights than the "right" to carry a gun. The Left has gotten Leftier, yes. But not so much as the Right has gotten Rightier. If you have an elbow scrape and a broken arm, which one gets more attention? The Right is the broken arm today. Maybe the Left will be tomorrow. This is a Nebraska sports website. By its nature, it's populated with a lot of very conservative people. Some more than others, and some not so well informed. Therefore the moderates on this site tend to spend a lot of time debunking myths and nonsense from the far Right. But here's the deal - if this was a Cal Bears website, it'd be populated by more Lefties. Real ones, not me & zoogs that people THINK are Lefties. If there were more Lefties here, spouting Lefty nonsense, as a Moderate I'd be debunking their nonsense, too. It's just the nature of the conversations we have here, and the population on this site, that makes it seem like some of us are "Defending Democrats." Part of the problem is, you've only been talking to me since 2013, well into the Obama regime. There was a lot of nonsense posted about Bush on various message boards, and here, when he was in office. I debunked that nonsense, too. Facts are facts. We are going to have to agree to disagree. Everything you just said is pure rubbish (in the spirit of Britain's big vote). Obama will not be remembered well at all. I don't love Trump but he's got a movement going on, and without his bombastic rhetoric, he would be in the lead right now easily over Hillary. As for left vs right, you will continue to fool yourself if you don't believe the Democratic party has moved way left, believing its the government's has an obligation to provide health care, college education, and other social justice programs, while bashing capitalism every chance possible, and when it comes to fighting terrorism, the approach is pacification and weakness in hopes that the bad guys will suddenly change heart if we don't go after them too strongly. Oh, and let's not forget that the Left still believes its ok to kill the pre-born, including in late-term situations. That is simply barbaric when science has shown that the nervous system is formed and these babies can feel the pain inflicted upon them. The ONLY area I see Hillary in the center is when it comes to her views of business as the engine that drives our economy, and even with that Bernie has pulled her to the left. As for debunking facts, you aren't using facts but simply spouting your opinion that the "right is doing more damage to the country." I'm just calling you out that you are pretending to be truly Independent but 90% of the time you are defending and siding with the Democrats OR going on the attack against the GOP.

But you do defend Democrats often in these debates. Just go back and look at many of your posts. In the gun control debate you claimed that Democrats do not use fear to sell their ideas. Americans continue to feel this country is on the wrong track and the career politicians are to blame, just as the British decided yesterday. Trump represents those tired of both parties and I suspect he will win the Independent vote significantly. Quote the posts where I've done this. Pretty simple to prove. Try response 1613 in the Republican Thread where you argued that Hillary's negligence and failure to listen to Ambassador Stevens for an entire year prior to the Benghazi attack was comparable to Bush's response in Katrina, an event that even surprised government officials that the levee would not hold. I also saw a response from you claiming that the GOP and NRA used fear-mongering, where as the Democrats do not resort to that tactic. Did you not make that claim? I did not make a blanket statement that Democrats do not use fear-mongering. Here is post #1613 in the Repub Debate thread: It does not say what you're claiming. What you may be confused about is what I defend. I defend facts. I presented facts, they are readily available online via simple google searches which many, many people in this forum continually urge you to perform, and the unwillingness to arm yourself with facts - not politically-inspired rhetoric - is not evidence that I "defend Democrats." Defense of facts is not a shortcoming. It only seems to become a problem when those facts don't fit someone's agenda. The statement you posted is your opinion that there is an equivalency between Bush's Katrina response and Hillary's Benghazi response. It's just my observation that you tend to bash Trump or Republicans more often than Democrats. It's no different than the statement you just made that the Right has moved so far right, while acting as though the left has not moved so far left. Both sides have their extremes, and highlighting only one is picking sides and not presenting facts.

But you do defend Democrats often in these debates. Just go back and look at many of your posts. In the gun control debate you claimed that Democrats do not use fear to sell their ideas. Americans continue to feel this country is on the wrong track and the career politicians are to blame, just as the British decided yesterday. Trump represents those tired of both parties and I suspect he will win the Independent vote significantly. Quote the posts where I've done this. Pretty simple to prove. Try response 1613 in the Republican Thread where you argued that Hillary's negligence and failure to listen to Ambassador Stevens for an entire year prior to the Benghazi attack was comparable to Bush's response in Katrina, an event that even surprised government officials that the levee would not hold. I also saw a response from you claiming that the GOP and NRA used fear-mongering, where as the Democrats do not resort to that tactic. Did you not make that claim?

But you do defend Democrats often in these debates. Just go back and look at many of your posts. In the gun control debate you claimed that Democrats do not use fear to sell their ideas. Americans continue to feel this country is on the wrong track and the career politicians are to blame, just as the British decided yesterday. Trump represents those tired of both parties and I suspect he will win the Independent vote significantly.

We see that hyperbole and propaganda here, all the time. America is going to get exactly the kind of chaos it earns with candidates like Trump, Cruz, and all the other raging blowhards. Fox News and their fear-mongering, the NRA and their fear-mongering, the lies about immigrants "build that wall!" and the bullsh#t being sold to average White Americans with a house, two cars, clothes, three flatscreen TVs, cable packages with 500 channels, who throw away tons of food every year and go on at least one vacation, about how things are being taken away from them.... You can't live in a palace and pretend you're a pauper for too long without that lie being exposed somehow. --------------------------------------- Give me a break. This is what happens when you have weak leaders in place not looking out for their own. I have said repeatedly that the Novemeber election will not be a race on whether Hillary or Trump have the lowest unfavorable ratings, but whether Americans want an outsider vs insider. Hillary represents everything that is wrong with our political establishment system, and there is a stark choice to stick with the status quo or shake up the system. Also, both sides use fear mongering all the time, so stop pretending its a one sided issue. Remember the Dems running an ad with Paul Ryan pushing granny off the cliff as a scare tactic for seniors to vote for Obama?

Im surprised too that it has not been brought up yet. The Brexit movement in the UK mirrors what is happening here in the US as well, with voters tired of the Establishment not wanting to put America first. Brexit also had a lot to do with immigration and open borders and appears to be a direct repudiation of the Obama/Hillary approach

Well it looks like Obamacare premiums are expected to rise by double digits on November 1, just before the general election, and that the rates for 2018 are supposed to go up even higher. So much for Obama's pitch that his health plan would keep costs down.